Madras High Court
Mary Amitharaj vs V.George Peter on 24 March, 2023
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 02.02.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2014
S.A.(MD).No.193 of 2016:
1.Mary Amitharaj
2.Vincent Theigaraj
3.Philomene Robert ... Appellants
Vs
1.V.George Peter
2.V.Maria Jesu (Died)
3.V.Francis Xavier
4.Michael Maria Rethinam
5.M.Maria Vinola
(R4 and R5 are brought on record as LRs of
___________
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
deceased 2nd respondent vide Court order dated
12.03.2018 made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.2382 to
2384 of 2018 in S.A.(MD).No.193/2016)
6.Maria Evangeline
7.Viswath Antony Arockiaraj @ F.Viswathraj
8.Viswath Arul Rajan ... Respondents
(RR 6 to 8 are impleaded vide Court order dated
19.01.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.2010 of 2020
in S.A.(MD).No.193/2016)
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court of the
Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivillputhur in A.S.No.02
of 2012 on 30.10.2013 in reversing the well considered Judgment and
Decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur in
O.S.No.310 of 1996 on 30.09.2011 and allow this Second Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Marimuthu
For R1 : Mr.J.Bharathan
for I.Velpradeep
For R2 : Mr.A.Sivaji
For R4 and R5 : Mr.K.Govindarajan
___________
Page 2 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
For R7 : Mr.S.Ponsenthilkumar
For R8 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
S.A.(MD).No.384 of 2014:
V.Francis Xavier ... Appellant
Vs
1.V.George Peter
2.Mary Amirtharaj
3.Vincent Theigaraj
4.Philomene Robert
5.V.Maria Jesu (Died)
6.Michael Maria Rethinam
7.M.Maria Vinola ... Respondents
(Respondents 6 and 7 are brought on record as
LRs of the deceased 5th Respondent vide Court
order dated 04.01.2018 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.
7855 of 2017)
Prayer:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
praying to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.2 of 2012 on the file
of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivillputhur dated
___________
Page 3 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
30.10.2013 reversing the judgement and decree in O.S.No.310 of 1996 on
the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur dated 30.09.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji
For R1 : Mr.J.Bharathan
for I.Velpradeep
For R2 to R4 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.G.Marimuthu
For R6 and R7 : Mr.K.Govindarajan
COMMONJUDGMENT
These Second Appeals are arising out of judgment and decree passed
in A.S.No.2 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar
District at Srivilliputhur reversing the decree for partition granted by the
Trial Court in O.S.No.310 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.
2. The parties are referred in this judgment as per their ranking in
Second Appeal in S.A.(MD).No.193 of 2016.
___________
Page 4 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
3. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD).No.193 of 2016 is filed by the
plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed for partition against the respondents.
The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the findings of the Trial Court
were reversed by the First Appellate Court on appeal filed by the 1st
respondent. Therefore, the plaintiffs have come up by way of this second
appeal.
4. The Second Appeal in S.A.(MD).No.384 of 2014 is filed by 4th
defendant in the suit aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the
First Appellate Court upholding the Will pleaded by the 1st respondent.
Plaint Averments:
5. According to the appellants in S.A.(MD).No.193 of 2016/plaintiffs,
the suit properties originally belonged to their father S.Viswasam Nadar. He
died intestate on 28.10.1996 leaving behind his daughters, the
appellants/plaintiffs and 3 sons, respondents/defendants 3, 2 and 4, apart
from his wife, deceased 1st defendant in the suit. The appellants claimed that
___________
Page 5 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
after the death of S.Viswasam Nadar, they had been possession and
enjoyment of suit properties as co-owners along with the respondents. It was
also alleged that though appellants requested for effecting partition by metes
and bounds, the respondents evaded their request and hence, the appellants
were constrained to file a suit for partition against the respondents and also
their deceased mother claiming 6/18 share. Pending Suit, the mother of the
parties viz., 1st defendant in the suit Maria Thangammal passed away and
hence, after her death, appellants herein, claiming equal share along with
the respondents, amended plaint seeking 3/6 share in the suit properties.
Averments found in Written Statement:
6. The 1st defendant in the suit viz., mother of the appellants and
respondents filed a written statement wherein she claimed that S.Viswasam
Nadar during his life time executed a Will on 26.08.1993 bequeathing suit
properties to her and hence, she claimed absolute right over the suit
properties and sought for dismissal of the suit.
___________
Page 6 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
7. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant herein filed a written statement
and claimed that S.Viswasam Nadar executed a Registered Will registered
as Document No.56/93 on the file of Sub Registrar's Office, Eraniel in
respect of his properties in Tamil Nadu and executed another Registered
Will registered as Document No.76/95 on the file of Sub-Registry, Pattom,
Tiruvanandapuram regarding his properties at Kerala including the plaint 1st
Schedule Property and hence, plaintiffs have no right over the suit
properties. It was further averred by him that he was not beneficiary under
the Will executed by S.Viswasam Nadar and hence, he was not a necessary
party to the suit as suit properties were not given him under those Wills.
8. The contesting 1st respondent/3rd defendant filed a written statement
disputing the averments in the plaint that the suit properties were self
acquired properties of S.Viswasam Nadar and he died on 28.10.1996.
However, 1st respondent specifically denied the averment made by the
appellants as if, S.Viswasam Nadar died intestate. It was specifically averred
by the 1st respondent that S.Viswasam Nadar during his life time, when he
___________
Page 7 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
was hale and healthy, executed a Registered Will dated 05.06.1995
registered as Document No.76/95 on the file of Sub-Registry, Pattom,
Tiruvanandapuram bequeathing 1st Schedule of the Suit Properties in his
favour subject to the life interest of deceased 1st defendant viz., the mother
of the parties. He also claimed that in respect of portion of 1st Schedule
Property, 2 cents of land and first floor of the building, S.Viswasam Nadar
executed a Settlement Deed dated 19.02.1996 in his favour and same had
been acted upon by mutation of revenue records. Thus, on the basis of the
Will pleaded by him, the contesting 1st respondent prayed for dismissal of
the suit.
9. The 3rd respondent/4th defendant in the suit filed a written statement
and claimed that S.Viswasam Nadar executed a Will in Document No.2/89
registered on the file of Sub Registrar Office at Pattom, Kerala bequeathing
Suit 1st Schedule Property in favour of sons of 4 th defendant. It was asserted
by him that 1989 Will executed by S.Viswasam Nadar in favour of his sons
was his last Will and on that ground he sought for dismissal of the suit. As
___________
Page 8 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
far as 2nd Schedule of the Suit Properties were concerned, the 4th defendant
admitted in his written statement that the same was available for partition as
S.Viswasam Nadar did not execute any Will in respect of those properties.
He also paid separate court fee claiming equal share in the 2nd Schedule of
the Suit Property. On these pleadings, the parties went to the trial.
10. On behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs, the 3rd plaintiff was
examined as PW.1 and no documents were exhibited on the side of the
appellants. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent/3rd defendant
was examined as DW.1 and the attestor to the Will relied on by him viz.,
Ex.B2 was examined as DW.2. The 3rd respondent/4th defendant was
examined as DW.3. The attestor to the Will pleaded by 4th respondent was
examined as DW.4. The mother of the parties viz., the deceased 1st
defendant was examined as DW.5. On behalf of respondents, 39 documents
were marked as Ex.B1 to B39. The signature of DW.2 was marked as Ex.C1.
___________
Page 9 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
11. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record came to the conclusion that neither the Will pleaded by
1st respondent Ex.B2 nor the Will pleaded by 4th defendant Ex.B32 were
proved. The Trial Court on entering a finding that S.Viswasam Nadar died
intestate decreed the suit granting half share (3/6).
12. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent herein alone filed an
appeal in A.S.No.2 of 2012 on the file of Principal District Court,
Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. The First Appellate Court reversed the
findings of the Trial Court and came to the conclusion that the Will pleaded
by the 1st respondent viz., Ex.B2 stood proved and consequently, allowed
the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs in
the suit have come before this Court in S.A.(MD).No.193 of 2016. The 3rd
respondent herein/4th defendant in suit has filed a separate second appeal in
S.A.(MD).No.384 of 2014 challenging the judgment and decree passed by
the First Appellate Court.
___________
Page 10 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
13. This Court at the time of admitting the second appeals formulated
the following substantial questions of law:-
“i) Are not the reversing judgment and decree of
the lower appellate court contrary to law when the Will
B2 and settlement deed B7 do not relate to the suit 2nd
item?
ii) Is the lower appellate court correct in law in
holding that the Will under Ex.B2 is valid and the last
Will when admittedly a settlement deed was executed after
the said will, that too, the Will was not validly proved in a
manner to law?”
14. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
appellants in S.A.(MD).No.193 of 2016 and respondents 2 to 4 in S.A.
(MD).No.384 of 2014 elaborated the substantial questions of law by stating
that Ex.B2-Will relied by 1st respondent was executed in Malayalam and on
the other hand the wife of testator viz., mother of the parties, who was
examined as DW.5 had categorically admitted that testator had no
___________
Page 11 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
knowledge in Malayalam. The learned Senior Counsel by taking this Court
to the evidence of DW.1 also submitted that though DW.1 in his chief
examination deposed that testator was very well conversant with
Malayalam, in his cross examination, he deposed that he was not fluent in
Malayalam. Therefore, by relying on the evidence of DW.1 and DW.5, the
learned Senior Counsel forcibly submitted that when testator was not fluent
in Malayalam execution Ex.B2-Will in Malayalam is doubtful and the same
is a serious suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. The learned
Senior Counsel also by taking this Court to the contradiction in the evidence
of attestor to Ex.B2-Will which were pointed out by the Trial Court in it's
judgment, submitted that Will has not been proved in accordance with law
as required under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned
Senior Counsel also assailed the Will-Ex.B2 on the ground that there was no
mention about the reason for disinheriting the appellants/plaintiffs'
daughters of the testator in the Will. The learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the failure to give reasons for disinheriting the daughters
makes the disposition under the Will as unnatural one. In this connection, he
___________
Page 12 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
relied on the judgment of this Court in Dharman vs. Marimuthu reported in
1996 – 2 – L.W. 600.
15. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel for the appellant in S.A.(MD).No.
384 of 2014 while supporting the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants in S.A.(MD).No.193 of 2016 supplemented the same by
submitting that Ex.B2-Will was allegedly executed by testator only in
respect of 1st Schedule of the Suit Property and hence, in the absence of any
testamentary documents concerning 2nd Schedule of the Suit Property, the
First Appellate Court after upholding Ex.B2-Will ought not to have set aside
the decree for partition granted by the Trial Court in respect of 2 nd Schedule
of the Suit Property.
16. Per contra, Mr.J.Bharathan, learned counsel appearing for
contesting 1st respondent tried to sustain the findings of the First Appellate
Court by submitting that the appellants' own witness PW.1 categorically
admitted that testator S.Viswasam Nadar had wide range of business activity
___________
Page 13 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
at Kerala and hence, his knowledge in Malayalam language cannot be
doubted. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the evidence of
PW.1 S.Viswasam Nadar's family lived at Tiruvanandapuram for long time
and Will was executed and registered at Tiruvanandapuram. Therefore, there
was nothing strange in executing the Will in Malayalam. The learned
counsel by taking this Court to the evidence of DW.2, the attestor to the
Ex.B2-Will submitted that his evidence clearly proved the due execution of
Will and nothing was culled out in his cross examination to doubt the
evidence of attestor.
17. The learned counsel by referring to the written statement filed by
the 2nd defendant submitted that 1st and 2nd appellants were provided with 33
cents of vacant land each in Kovilpatti Town by S.Viswasam Nadar and 3rd
appellant was provided with cash by way of premium in LIC policy. He also
referred to the averments regarding gift given to the appellants at the time of
marriage in the form of 125 sovereign of gold, cash and household articles.
Thus, it is the submission of learned counsel that the appellants/daughters of
___________
Page 14 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
the testator were given sufficient seer articles at the time of marriage
befitting the status of the family and hence, disinheritance of the appellants
cannot be termed as suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. The
learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram reported in (2020) 16 SCC 209 for the proposition
that mere absence of reference to the nature heir, who were disinherited in
the Will cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance surrounding the
Will. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in V.Prabhakara vs. Basavaraj K reported in (2022) 1 SCC 115 for
the proposition that testamentary court is not a court of suspicion and mere
exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion
unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating such an inference.
18. In his reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants by
pointing out the statement made by DW.2 attestor to Ex.B2-Will in his cross
examination submitted that he deposed that he did not sign Ex.B2. It is the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel that when attestor denied his
___________
Page 15 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
signature in Will unless the other attestor to the Will is examined, Will
cannot be treated as proved.
Discussion on Question of Law No.2:
19. It is settled law in case of proof of Wills, it is for the propounder
of the Will to prove the same by calling atleast one of the attestor to the
Will. In cases, where there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the
Will, the burden on the propounder will not get discharge by mere
examination of attestor to the Will and the same will continue till he dispel
those suspicious circumstances. One main contention raised by the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant was that the attestor DW.2 denied his
signature in Ex.B2-Will and hence, the Will was not proved in accordance
with law. It is settled law that the evidence of a witness has to be weighed as
a whole and inference cannot be drawn based on a stray statement of the
witness in his cross examination. In the light of the said position, let as
examine the evidence of DW.2 attestor to the Ex.B2-Will.
___________
Page 16 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
20. The DW.2 in his chief examination clearly deposed that he
attested Ex.B2-Will. He identified his signature as Kuttappan S/o.
Neelakandan. He also deposed clearly about the health and mental capacity
of the testator. In chief examination, he clearly deposed that he had seen
testator signing the Will and the said testator had seen the signing of the
Will by him and another attestor. He also said that he had seen the
attestation by another attestator namely Phzhkaran S/o. Punjan. During the
cross examination, he deposed about his attestation of Will. He was cross
examined extensively regarding attestation and withstood the cross
examination. In fact, he denied the suggestion that he did not attest Ex.B2-
Will and the signature found in Ex.B2 was not his signature.
21. During cross examination, he identified his signature in Ex.B2-
Will. It was recorded by the Trial Court that witness identified his signature
in Ex.B2 by putting a round mark by pencil over his signature in Ex.B2.
Therefore, there is no doubt that DW.2 identified his signature in Ex.B2-
Will and his evidence about attestation also withstood the cross
___________
Page 17 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
examination. However, when he was cross examined by 4th defendant's
counsel, there is one sentence in his cross examination as if, he deposed
that his signature did not find place in Ex.B2. It is not clear that what was
the question put to him and what was his answer to that question. The Trial
Court which recorded the evidence of DW.2 clearly mentioned that DW.2
identified his signature in Ex.B2 by putting a round mark surrounding his
signature in Ex.B2.
22. In such circumstances, a single statement in his evidence during
cross examination by 4th defendant, which does not go well with context,
cannot be sole ground to discredit the evidence of DW.2. Hence, the
arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel in this regard is not
acceptable to this Court.
23. The learned Senior Counsel by pointing out the evidence of DW.5
that her husband/testator had no knowledge in Malayalam submitted that it
is a serious suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. DW.5 is the
___________
Page 18 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
mother of the parties and wife of testator. A perusal of written statement
filed by her would make it clear that she filed a suit for bare injunction
restraining the appellants and defendants from interfering with her peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit properties in O.S.No.289 of 1997.
She relied on a separate Will dated 26.08.1993 and claims absolute right
over the suit properties. Therefore, it is clear that the relationship between
the 1st respondent and DW.5 was not cordial and she set up a rival claim
under different Will.
24. In these circumstances, much reliance cannot be made on the
evidence of DW.5 as if, testator had no knowledge in Malayalam. On the
contrary, appellants' own witness, PW.1 admitted about the knowledge of
testator in Malayalam. PW.1 in her evidence deposed that she was born and
brought up at Tiruvanandapuram. Her father/testator died at
Tiruvanandapuram. All the appellants and respondents got married at
Tiruvanandapuram. She specifically admitted that the house in the Suit 1 st
Schedule Property was constructed for residential use of testator at
___________
Page 19 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
Tiruvanandapuram. She obtained her B.Sc., degree from the college at
Tiruvanandapuram. She also admitted her father had main business at
Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Thus, well pronounced admissions of PW.1 would
make it clear that testator had wide range of business activity at
Tiruvanandapuram and he resided at Tiruvanandapuram for best part of his
life along with his children. Infact, he put up a house in 1 st Schedule of the
Suit Property for his residential use. Therefore, the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant as if, testator had no knowledge in
Malayalam cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence of appellants own
witness PW.1. DW.1, the attestor to Ex.B2 deposed that testator had
knowledge in Malayalam.
25. Though DW.1 in his cross examination deposed that testator can
read Malayalam a little and he cannot read it fluently. In the light of the
evidence of attestor that the terms of the Will was dictated by the testator
and the same was prepared by the scribe and the testator put his signature in
the Will after it was being read over to him, I hold lack of fluency in
___________
Page 20 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
Malayalam may not go against the 1st respondent in this case in the light of
the fact that Will was executed and registered at Tiruvanandapuram and the
testator had spent best part of his life at Tiruvanandapuram. There is an
ample evidence of records to show that he had enough knowledge in
Malayalam to understand the same. Therefore, the suspicious circumstance
pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel is dispelled by evidence of PW.1,
DW.1 and DW.2.
26. In view of the discussions made earlier, I hold the 1st respondent
succeeded in proving Ex.B2-Will pleaded by him. The findings of the fact
arrived at by the First Appellate Court in this regard requires no interference
by this Court and the question of law No.2 is answered against the
appellants.
Discussion on Question of Law No.1:
27. A bare perusal of Ex.B2 relied on by 1st respondent would make it
clear that the said testamentary document was executed only in respect of 1 st
___________
Page 21 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
Schedule of the Suit Property. There is no evidence available on record to
show that there is any other testamentary document covering 2nd Schedule of
the Suit Property. Ex.B2-Will pleaded by 4th respondent was disbelieved by
the Trial Court and the said finding was not assailed by the 4 th respondent by
filing first appeal. Therefore, the 4th respondent cannot challenge the said
finding in this second appeal. In any event, this Court concurred with the
findings of First Appellate Court with regard to genuineness of Ex.B2-Will.
28. In the absence of any valid testamentary document by S.Viswasam
Nadar in respect of 2nd Schedule of the Suit Property, the appellants and
respondents who are children of S.Viswasam Nadar are entitled to equal
share in the 2nd Schedule of the Suit Property. The First Appellate Court
committed a serious error in setting aside the decree for partition granted by
the Trial Court with regard to 2nd Schedule of Suit Property when Ex.B2-
Will pleaded by the 1st respondent was confined to 1st Schedule of the Suit
Property.
___________
Page 22 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
29. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court in respect of 2nd Schedule of the Suit Property is liable to be
set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored in
respect of 2nd Schedule of the Suit Property. Accordingly, the question of
law No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants.
In fine:-
(a) Both the Second Appeals are partly allowed by setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in so far
as the 2nd Schedule of the Suit Property is concerned.
(b) The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is
confirmed in so far as the 1st Schedule of the Suit Property is
concerned.
___________
Page 23 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
(c) The suit is decreed in so far as the 2nd Schedule of Suit Property is
concerned by granting half share to the appellants and the suit is
dismissed in respect of the 1st Schedule of the Suit Property.
(d) The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(e) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order
as to costs.
24.03.2023
NCC: Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
dm
___________
Page 24 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Virudhunagar District at Srivillputhur.
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Srivilliputhur.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
___________
Page 25 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm Pre-delivery common judgement in S.A.(MD).Nos.193 of 2016 and 384 of 2014 24.03.2023 ___________ Page 26 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis